For any software development project, many software modules are involved,
where some are defined as safety critical, others are not. For example, in
railway signaling, communications modules are likely to be defined as
critical, whereas other modules such as those involving data storage or
other basic functions are not. An analysis may be performed with the
objective of demonstrating that the safety critical modules are entirely
independent from the non critical modules, leading to the conclusion that
the application of a programming standard for safety critical software is
only required for those modules defined as safety critical (note the phrase
“with the objective of demonstrating…”; I would hesitate before drawing the
conclusion that the analysis really demonstrates what it is supposed to
demonstrate).

In my field the EN 50128 would be applied, however, it could be any standard
for safety critical software. Thus, the software is developed applying the
standard only to the modules which have been defined as “safety critical”.
In order to supposedly save time/money, etc., the rest of the modules are
developed as non-critical software, either as SIL 0 functions or according
to a standard programming standard. My question is whether such an approach
is really valid, given that the application of a safety critical standard
does not only involve the application of specific language features, it
involves an entire development life cycle, and I find it difficult to see
how the modules defined as “non-critical” then do not form part of that life
cycle. I’m not saying it is not valid, but I would like to know how others
see this.

Additionally, if the same programmers are involved in the programming of
both critical and non-critical modules, does it really make sense that they
only pay attention to the features required for safety critical software
when programming the critical modules, and modify their programming style
for the rest of the modules (or revert back to their “usual” style)? These
questions also depend on what you consider as critical, for example, for a
control system with a HMI, you could only consider communication modules
critical, however, you need a GUI to display the status of the elements an
operator has to control correctly. Some operations performed by the operator
may not have the potential to generate a hazard with a high severity level,
because there are mitigations in place. However, that doesn’t necessarily
mean that the software responsible for displaying the information should not
be programmed according to a safety critical standard. I am aware that these
questions don’t have an “easy” answer; any opinions would be appreciated.